HADDEN
fl.
THE
J.
H.RUTTER.
365
The libelants, if they have a cause of action, are entitled to enforce it. It would be most unjust to 'require them to await, without security, the result in the supreme court. The motion is denied.
HADDEN v. THE J. H. RUTTER, (two cases.y (District Oourt, 8. D. N(JU) York. May 22, 1888.)
1.
COLJ.IStON-TUGS AND Tows-NEGLIGENCE-ANcHORS.
It is not rea.sonable prudence to undertake navigation, especially at a sea· son of the year when violent squalls are not infrequent, without anchors adapted to the boats in use. If such anchors. are not provided, it must be at the. owner's risk of the natural consequences; . .
The steam-tug R., while towing two heavy car· floats, encountered a violent .squall, which she was unable to breast, and the tow drifted towards a dock where several boats lay moored, and collide9- with the latter, and libelant's boats w·ere injured. The. R. had only one small anchor, wholly insufficient to hold the tow against the squall. The vessels at the dock exhibited nQ lights, Held, that the tug was solely liable for the collision. . 3. MOORED BY A Boats moored in the uSllal way alongside -a wharf, and not in the way of other boats, are not required to exhibit lights.
2.
SAME.
In Admiralty. Hyland Zabriskie, for libelants. Carpenter Mosher, for claimants. BROWN, J. On the night of the 18th December, 1887, at about 11 o'clock, the steam-tug J. H. Rutter left Barclay street, with two loaded car7floats in tow, both lashed upon the port side, bound for Sixty-Eighth sfreet, North river. When oft' Forty-Second street they were struck by. a sudden squall, with a high wind from the northward or north-west, and thick snow. The Rutter was unable to keep her tow headed up river, though using all her force, and in going up they continued to drift towards the New York shore, until she found herself approaching the long pier at the foot of Fifty-Fifth street, along which numerous boats lay moored. She was unable to stop in time to avoid striking some of the boats, and they were knocked about so as to injure two of the libelant's boats, for which injury this suit was brought. When the Rutter left Barclay street the weather was threatening from the north-east, but the wind was not so strong as to prevE-nt proper handling of her tow. It is plain, however, that the tow was so heavy that she was unable to cope with the squall that struck her when the wind hauled to the northward and westward; and she had only a small anchor aboard, wholly insufficient to hold so heavy a tow. Without reference Lo the other charges of negligence. I cannot hold it to be reasonable prudence to undertake navigation, especially at a season ,'Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
866 of the year;whenviolentsqualls ,ar.e not infrequent, without anQbprs adapted thEl; boats in use, ·lI,nd. sufficient, in caae of need, to prevent them from becoming instruments of destruction to others. If suitable anchors are not provided, it must be at the owner's risk' of the natural consequences. It is urged that the boats moored alongside the Fifty-Fifth-street pier were in fault for not exhibiting lights, and the case of The Lydia, 4 Ben. 523, is cited, Wberetbeschoonerwfis struok inside of the range ofthe open space between the Forty-Seventh and Fifty-Fifth street piers. Had these boats been, like the Lydia, lying at' anchor within the line of the piers, where other boats were to be expected to pass, I should have followed that decision., 1 do not think it applicable to boats moored like these in the usualwaYalpngside the pier$,s.lthough there were many· boats, and though this pier 'extended iritq the river, when, as here, they were not in the way of the navigation of other boats. It is not the practice to exhibit stich;lights unles$ there are sQme special circumstances of danger, having reference to thecirdihar{havigationof other vessels. This has several times been decided'in the supreme court. The Bridgeport, 14 and cases there cited; Shields v. The Mayor, 18 Fed. Rep. 748. I do not think this was so exceptional as to justify the application of a different rule. To do so would certainly be imposing a duty upon such boats not hitherto understood. There is a distressing conflict as to the nature and extent of the damages. As respects demurrage, I am satisfied that the bORt, at that season,- was not practically in use, and that no demurrage for' detention should therefore be allowed, except wbile the repairs were necessarily ou. On the whole, I most probable that the breaks in the and timbers claimed by the libelant were tberesult of this collislon, and were not old breaks.· As to Rome other items, I am not· I allow in the case otthe Ohamberlain $45, with costs, and of the Seeley $107. with costs.
· HARVEY tl. SMITH.. ,.
ORISON ",.THE SYRACUSE. I
(District Court, E. D. New York. May 12, 1888.) COLLISION-VESSEL AT ANCHOR IN PROPER PLAOE.
A tow:boat is liable for the damage resulting from a collision between the boats of her tow and a vessel at anchor in a proper place.
In· Admiralty. Libel f6r dattlages. On the night of October 1'6, 1886, the schooner Juliette Terty was lying- at anchor in the North the foot of ThirtyFourth street. The tow-boat Syracuse, with a. tow of canal-boats and ·1:),argesastern of her on a h'awser; passed up outside of the schooner 'out touching her, but thetoweame in collision with the schooner, carrying' alway her head-gear, and causing her to lose an anchor and chain. For such ,damage this suit brought. The Syracuse claimed that the schooner was anchored in airiiifiproper place, and, did not payout 'her anchor chain, when hailedtd do so, and that'thetow was carried upon 'her by the force of " , Carpenter «Moshir, .for libelant. ' for theSymcuse. J. 'This is an action to recover damages occasioned to the Terry by, being run into by: the tow-boat Sytacrise,ih th;e'Nprtb river. The sCh60nerwas at the time at anchor at .ft 'where'she had iuight tb De. 'The evidence fails to show fault onIler ·part. The fault was of the Syracuse in omitting to avoid The libelant must have a decree for his damages and costs. BEN1l:mCT,
HARVEY
'l1. SMITH
et az''' ,
(District Court, S. D. N6'U! York. May 28, 1888.)
.1.
SEAMEN.....DISABLED SlIlAJUN--ABANDONHE1.'tT wiTHOUT PAYMENT OF WAGES-:aRITI8H VESIjIllL.
Under the provisions of the British merchants'shipping act, a vesllel has no right to abandon a disabled seaman without payment of his wages up to the time of his being left on shore, together with prOVision for his return home.
2.BAllE-CERTJl,l'ICATlIl'OF DI8ABU.ITy-FAIX,VBlll.TO FORNISH-PlllNAX,U-Rl!lcov· ERY IN ACTION FOR WAGES. . . .. ,
The penalty of £10, provided by sectiOn 209 of the British merchants' shipping aGt for failure of the Iilasterto deliver to the consul a certifioate of a !leamAn', inability .procee(;l 0,1)" the togethllr anaccount of the wages due him, and payment thereof, is recoverable by the sea· ' ', man in an action against the vessel for his wages. by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
1 Reported